Lawsuit: Adjourned lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lawanoesepr

Doctor of Medicine, Internal Medicine
Construction & Transport Department
Supporter
Aventura Resident
3rd Anniversary 2nd Anniversary Change Maker Popular in the Polls
lawanoesepr
lawanoesepr
Inspector
Joined
May 8, 2021
Messages
918
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar association
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The chairman of the RBA violated my right to recall a Councilor by saying that I did not meet criteria, In which I clearly did.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I was asking Councilor aladeen to help change the RBA by creating a more active council. I was told that the RBA had failed and that I should talk to another Councilor, I felt like the councilor was not listening to members of the board,I then motion to recall the councilor, but was told by chairman love that I needed 3 people to motion.


I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove(Chairman)
2. Aladeen (Councilor)
3. Lawanoesepr (Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. I felt that Councilor aladeen had failed to take the intrest of the board in to consideration.
2. The modern legal board act states "A councilor of the RBA may be recalled by the Board should at least ⅔ of all voting lawyers agree to this removal. A special election to fill the vacancy shall take place immediately, administered by the Department of State.". This shows that there is no criteria to motion but there is to remove.
3. The constitution states that I have
the right to vote a Government official out of his or her office. That right has not been given to me in this case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Because I couldn't have motioned to remove a Councilor my right to remove a government official has been violated.
2. The RBA has violated the modern legal board act by not letting me motion to remove Councilor Aladeen.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A writ of mandumous ordering the RBA to put the motion to a vote as part of the verdict.
2. A permanent injunction prohibiting the RBA to not put a motion to vote.


Screenshot_20220113-110429.jpg


Screenshot_20220113-110438.jpg


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 13th day of January 2022
 
district-court-png.12083

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Chairperson of the Redmont Bar Association is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Lawanoesepr v. Redmont Bar Association. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case. Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

lawanoesepr
Plaintiff

v.

The Redmont Bar Association
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense refutes the complaint, as the law is severely misinterpreted by the Plaintiff.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Modern Legal Board Act does not specify that the Chairman must put up a vote for removal. A voting process is not enumerated and is thus not required.
2. The MLBA simply states that if 2/3 of the board concur, a councilor can be removed. If 2/3 of the Council wants to remove the councilor, then obtaining a second and a third for a motion to remove a councilor surely cannot be difficult.
3. The RBA, pursuant to the MLBA, is an independent organization with ties to the Government. Thus, its councilors are not government officials and the right to vote a government official out of office was not violated.
4. There was clearly not any support for the removal besides the Plaintiff, and therefore the 2/3 threshold was not met.
5. The Modern Legal Board Act gives the Council, including the Chairman, the power of "enacting, amending, and repealing RBA policy." It also states that the Chairman maintains order and decorum, which was done by asking for an affirmation for the motion. There would otherwise always be frivolous motions should the RBA be required to be put up to a vote just after a motion, regardless of whether they even have any support.
6. I would like to add that I authored the law and should be considered as an expert in its interpretation.

III. OBJECTIONS
1. I object to the exhibits on the grounds of hearsay. They are out-of-court statements being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is the very definition of hearsay.
lawanoesepr said:
but was told by chairman love that I needed 3 people to motion.
Click to expand...
2. I object to the above statement on the grounds of hearsay. It is an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is the very definition of hearsay.
lawanoesepr said:
I was told that the RBA had failed and that I should talk to another Councilor
Click to expand...
3. I object to the above statement on the grounds of hearsay. It is an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is the very definition of hearsay.
lawanoesepr said:
The RBA has violated the modern legal board act by not letting me motion to remove Councilor Aladeen.
Click to expand...
4. I object to the above statement on the grounds of perjury. The RBA did not prevent the motion from being made; it was made. It, however, was not backed and therefore not actioned. Furthermore, there is no mention of motions for removal in the Modern Legal Board Act. This is clearly grossly falsified, and it is clear this was intentional as the Plaintiff clearly understands the clause in question as he cited it and used it earlier in his filing.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 13th day of January, 2022
 
By request of the presiding magistrate, I am confirming that the RBA Chairman will defend the RBA in this matter. The Office of the Attorney General does not wish to be involved.
 
Response to objections.

1. These are not hearsay these are screenshots of the actions the chairman took.
2. It is not hearsay as In the screenshot provided and even in the defendants response he said that it should not be hard to get a 2nd or 3rd.

4. A motion was made but It never was voted on with the only voting lawyer being myself. under the clause that gives me the power to file the recall It says 2/3 majority is required from all *voting lawyers* with myself being the only voter it had reached a unanimous majority.
 
lawanoesepr said:
Response to objections.

1. These are not hearsay these are screenshots of the actions the chairman took.
2. It is not hearsay as In the screenshot provided and even in the defendants response he said that it should not be hard to get a 2nd or 3rd.

4. A motion was made but It never was voted on with the only voting lawyer being myself. under the clause that gives me the power to file the recall It says 2/3 majority is required from all *voting lawyers* with myself being the only voter it had reached a unanimous majority.
Click to expand...
Objection your honor, breach of court procedure. The Plaintiff spoke out of turn.

Objection your honor, perjury. The Plaintiff has both said he voted on the vote, but also said a vote was never held. He is clearly twisting facts. Furthermore, he never casted a formal vote, especially since there was no means to do so as the motion was not actioned as it was not backed.

I would also like to remind the Plaintiff that hearsay is any evidence that includes out-of-court statements, at least in any real-life Court.
 
I will address all objections made to date in this one post.

As to the objections made by the Defense in the response to the complaint:
Objection 1 is overruled as the images provided are essentially chat logs for this setting, and chat logs are an acceptable form of evidence.
Objections 2 and 3 are likewise overruled on the same reasoning. The initial evidence remains
Objection 4 is overruled as perjury applies to knowingly false statements made by witnesses, which I do not believe applies in this instance.

As to the follow-up objections made by the Defense to the Plaintiff's rebuttal responding to the original objections:
Objection 1 on the grounds of a breach of court procedure is sustained, and the Plaintiff is warned for talking out of turn in court. As they are a lawyer, they should know better. However, given that the Plaintiff would make a rebuttal to the objections in either case, I will not consider them invalid.
Objection 2 on the grounds of perjury is overruled as this objection is based on a difference in interpretation of the Modern Legal Board Act, and what constitutes both a voting member, and how any recalls should be applied. Given that this objection is made on grounds that may be disputed during these proceedings, the Court will not make a decision on the exact interpretation at this time.

With that being said, if either party has any witnesses to call, I ask that they post a list of all of their witnesses, or declare that they have no witnesses to call, in a timely manner so that I can issue the proper writs of summons.
 
I have 2 witnesses:
Councilor aladeen
Chairman AlexanderLove
 
Your honor, with all due respect, we have not presented opening remarks yet.

Additionally, it would be inappropriate for me to testify as a witness for the Plaintiff as I am representing the defense.
 
Oh, yes, forgive me. The Plaintiff may present their opening statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

1. After proposal of the motion chairman love told me to get a second or third person, which is not required by the modern legal board act. After telling him this he claims that it does not outline a procedure.

2. If no procedure is outlined then it means that no other actions shoud be taken and should be put to a vote.

3. My right to recall a public official out of office is in violation as the RBA is a government entity.

4. The RBA has failed to protect the interests of the board by blocking a vote.
 
The Defense may now present their opening statments.
 
Objection overruled, as the statement is being used to describe a sequence of events, and not in this instance to prove a fact. The Defense may present their opening statement.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing council, this is a case of agenda for anger. The Plaintiff, lawanoesepr, is angry that he did not get any public support for his beliefs, and is thus trying to force his agenda. The Plaintiff asserts that when one person motions to remove a councilor, that vote MUST be held. This simply is unreasonable, as everyday people could motion to remove every councilor unilaterally. I did indeed tell the Plaintiff to obtain backing for his motion, as most motions are done in other institutions. Congress usually requires at least a second for motions to be called to a vote. If the Plaintiff expects to get anywhere near a 2/3 vote, the threshold for the removal of an RBA councilor, surely obtaining a second and a third would not be difficult at all. The Plaintiff could not even get a second, became angry, and filed a frivolous lawsuit to promote his private, political agenda.

The Modern Legal Board Act, authored by me, borrowed in part from MilkCrack, does not require any explicit process for the removal of an RBA Councilor. Therefore, we can default on the clause that gives the Council, including the Chairman, the power of "enacting, amending, and repealing RBA policy." Furthermore, the Chairman was maintaining order and decorum in the RBA by ensuring it is not clogged up by frivolous, unsupported, and unilateral motions. The Modern Legal Board Act states that the Chairman maintains order and decorum, which was done by asking for an affirmation for the motion. The motion was not blocked, but it clearly did not meet its 2/3 threshold if only one board member supported the motion.

To address the right to remove an individual from office, it was not infringed as the vote was not blocked. Reasonable requirements were simply added. We surely don't see people unilaterally motioning to remove sitting Presidents, Congressmen, and Cabinet Members out of office, so clearly this right doesn't give citizens the extent of power the Plaintiff describes. There is a reasonable pathway to vote an RBA Councilor out of office, which requires the assent of only three board members, far under the 2/3rd benchmark to remove said councilor.

Thank you.
 
I object
Hearsay,
The defendant claims I am doing this for a political agenda, This is clear hearsay as there is nothing to back it up.
 
The objection is overruled, as there is no evidence or testimony to dispute.
 
We will now move onto witness testimony.

In the proper proceedings for a trial, counsel may not be called as a witness, with one exception.
  1. That [opposing counsel's] testimony will be actually adverse to [his or her client];
  2. that the evidence sought to be elicited from the lawyer will likely be admissible at trial under the controlling rules of evidence; and
  3. that there is a compelling need for such evidence, which need cannot be satisfied by some other source.
By the writing of these procedures, all three conditions must be met in order to constitute an exception, in which case counsel may be called as a witness.

In this situation, the exception applies, as follows: AlexanderLove's testimony may be adverse to the Defense, satisfying condition 1. The evidence sought will likely be admissible, given that it is witness questioning, and provided the standards of questioning are met, satisfying condition 2. Finally, the testimony provided by the Chairperson of the RBA can only come from one individual, and given the nature of the case, the testimony is needed. By this exception, AlexanderLove will be allowed to testify as a witness, if the Plaintiff so wishes.

Both parties may submit a list of witnesses or indicate that they have none to call.
 
alexanderLove (Chairman)
Nnmc(Attorney General watched the motion be denied)
Aladeen (Councilor)
 
Your Honor,

I have been retained by the Redmont Bar Association to represent them in this case. As I am not up to date with all the facts yet i would like 48 hours to get aquatinted and have a proper defense prepared.
 
Given the extenuating circumstances, the extension is granted. Please have a list of witnesses or indicate that you have none to call within 48 hours from this time.
 
Your honor,

It has exceeded 48 hours I request that the defense post their list of witnesses or state they have none
 
You are mistaken, and there is still over an hour left. If, however, by that time the defense has not made any reply, we will move on without it.
 
Seeing as the defense has not responded in any form within the provided 48 hours, I will summon all witnesses. As AlexanderLove is currently banned from DemocracyCraft, he will not be testifying.
 
My Apologizes your honor,

We Object to Mr Love testifying as he has been banned.

We would like to call Aladeen
 
district-court-png.12083


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@nnmc and @Aladeen are hereby summoned to the District Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Lawanoesepr v. Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4 as witnesses. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that the plaintiff provides a list of all the questions they want answered by each witness in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. When the plaintiff is ready and all witnesses have declared themselves present, they may ask questions to the witnesses. Then the defense will be given the opportunity to cross-examine.

Witnesses are reminded of the laws regarding testimony and this is a warning to all witnesses that providing knowingly false testimony is illegal pursuant to the Perjury Act. It is expected that you will tell the truth in court, and take this matter seriously.​
 
Your honor, I am present.
 
Questions for aladeen:
1. Is it true that you stated the RBA had failed

2. Is it true that you told me to talk to other councilor's

3. Is it true you motioned for the RBA to sue me in order to revoke my practicing license, if so does this case have any ties to why it was motioned?

Question's for nnmc:
1. When witnessing the events of the motion being refuse tovbeing put to vote, Did you, in your legal expertise, feel that the refusal to put a motion to vote twas a stretch or, even abuse of power?

2. Did you have any suspicions regarding the RBA's actions?
 
Aladeen has communicated to me that due to personal reasons, he will be dismissed from this lawsuit. However, nnmc must still provide answers to the questions listed.
 
For reference, Aladeen explained that he is unable to reliably connect to forums sufficiently to participate in this trial. The message is attached, and I apologize deeply for the lack of transparency.

Furthermore, seeing as this is a temporary setback, I am changing the dismissal to an extension. I ask that Aladeen answer the questions when they are in an area with reliable internet coverage.

1642914747057.png
 
I Object to question 1 for nnmc, the Plaintiff is leading them with that question and assuming that his point has been proved.
 
I also Object to question 2 for aladeen, the question makes no sense and have no purpose as it has zero context.
 
After careful consideration,
Objection to question 1 for nnmc as a leading question is sustained, and the question is struck.
Objection to question 2 for Aladeen on the grounds of relevance is sustained, and the question is likewise struck.
 
@nnmc has 24 hours to reply before he is found in contempt of court.
 
Present, your honor. Sorry for the delay.

In answer to Question 2, suspicious is not the right word. I was confused. The modern legal board act does not clearly define the procedure of a motion of no confidence. So I would say I did not feel suspicious, but I felt confused.
 
I have question to follow up that answer.
1. What are you confused about exactly?
 
Confused about whether the RBA was acting illegally or not. To be honest though, I didn’t bother to think much about it. I try to stay away from RBA drama.
 
Does the Plaintiff have any more questions for the witness?
 
No your honor
 
The Defense may now cross-examine the witness. Please post all relevant questions in one post, unless there are follow-up questions.
 
Your honor, It has come to my attention that aladeen has not answered the questions. I ask that he answer before the defense cross examines
 
Given that Aladeen has been granted an extension on the questions, the defense may cross examine the first witness now and then once Aladeen provides testimony he may be cross examined.
 
Mr. SumoMC has 24 hours to post a response or we will move on without one.
 
Your Honor,

The plaintiff has not finished and we were never prompted, I would like 48 hours to prepare questions
 
The plaintiff declared several days ago that they had no further questions for the first witness. From then, I prompted the defense to cross-examine the witness if they so desired. I even restated that prompt a second time several days before giving a 24 hour warning. There is no basis to argue that no opportunity was given. The extension is denied.
 
Mr. nnmc:

1.) When motioning to remove a member of the Council, is there a specific process defined for removal?

2.) In your opinion, Does the Modern Legal Board Act, clearly define and lay out a process for removal?

Mr. Aladeen:

1.) Why does Mr Lawan want to see you removed (or did)?

2.) Do you, in your opinion believe that Mr Lawan was in the right to approach Mr Love and ask to have a vote for your removal, especially with minimal evidence?
 
@nnmc has 24 hours to respond before he is found in contempt of court.
 
1) there does not appear to be a specific process outlined by the Modern Legal Board Act
2) It does not, in my view.
 
Your honor, Aladeen has attained a stable internet connection and should be able to answer my questions. he sent a message via discord a on January 30th.
Screenshot_20220204-181056.jpg
 
@Aladeen has 24 hours to respond before he is found in contempt of court.
 
I has exceeded 24 hours
 
My apologies, I have been incredibly busy irl. I find Aladeen in contempt of court, and I hereby order that the DOJ fine him $50.
 
Furthermore, if the Defense has any further questions for nnmc, they may ask them or state that they have none.
 
The defense rest your honor
 
If Aladeen does not reply in 24 hours, we will have to move on to closing statements without his testimony, and he will be found again in contempt of court.
 
Your honor it has exceeded 24 hours by alot
 
Indeed it has, and I apologize deeply for my inactivity. We will now move on to closing statements as Aladeen has failed to respond at all and this cannot be prolonged any further. The Plaintiff may now present their closing statements.
 
Hello everyone, I will be taking over this case, I will read it through quickly and then we will move on.
 
Your Honor,

I would like to ask the court for a speedy closing. This case has been dragged out for far to long. The plaintiff has bad well over 72 hours to present a closing statement.
 
Aladeen has still not responded. He is in contempt of court, and due to this being his 2nd offense, I hereby order the DOJ to fine him $350, and put him in jail for 5 minutes.

On a separate note, the Plaintiff has had well 72 hours and hasn't provided their closing statement. Because of this, we will skip their closing statement, and the defense has 48 hours to provide their closing statement.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH

CLOSING STATEMENT

Through this court case, the plaintiff has tried to prove that his right to have a government official was violated by the Former Chairman of the RBA and therefore the RBA had violated the Modern Legal Board Act. This is false, the RBA did not violate the plaintiffs rights. In the MLBA, there is no clear process to have a Councilor Removed. All it says is that 2/3rds of the board must be in agreement to have a councilor removed. How is a vote to come about you might ask? Well the MLBA does NOT set out a process for this to be called. So it can reasonably be assumed that it would be at the chairman's discretion. The Modern Legal Board Act gives the Council, including the Chairman, the power of "enacting, amending, and repealing RBA policy." It also states that the Chairman maintains order and decorum, which was done by asking for an affirmation for the motion. There would otherwise always be frivolous motions should the RBA be required to be put up to a vote. The Plaintiff was just asked to find two other people that support his motion, he failed to do that meaning he was the only one feeling this way.

The court now has the job of taking everything that was said and entering into evidence here and providing a verdict. It is my hope that the court will see this case for the farce it is, and hand down a verdict in favor of the defense.

Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you to the Defendant for his fast reply. This court will now go into recess and a verdict will be posted soon.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] DCR 4

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Modern Legal Board act (MLBA) says if 2/3 of voting lawyers agree, a councilor may be removed.
2. The chairman refused to let a vote happen to remove Aladeen unless the Plaintiff got 2 other lawyers that wanted the removal to happen.
3. The MLBA gives no requirements on how to call a vote, so a vote should be called and if 2/3 of the voting lawyer agree then you can remove someone.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The MLBA doesn't explicitly state a chairman has to put everything up for a vote.
2. Because the MLBA isn't clear, the chairman never broke any rules in the MLBA
3. There was no one else that supported Aladeen's removal, so it would have been unreasonable to put it up for a vote.
4.The MLBA states that the chairman is supposed to keep order in the RBA, and is allowed to amend or remove policies to make the RBA function smoother.
5. The original councilor for the RBA was AlexanderLove and he coauthored the MLBA, therefore his interpretation is correct.
6. If everything went to a vote, there would be many frivolous motions to remove people from leadership positions in the RBA.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Despite part of the Defense coauthoring the MLBA, it isn't up to them to interpret anything that isn't explicitly stated on the act of Congress.
2. However because there isn't clear writing that says the chairman must put everything to a vote, they don't have to.
3. In this case specifically the chairman has put forward reasonable requirements to put a motion to a vote, that the Plaintiff hasn't met.
4. These requirements aren't to prevent a vote from happening, it's to prevent any frivolous motions brought forth by any lawyer from being put to a vote.

IV. DECISION
1. Because the chairman is supposed to keep order, and the requirements that he stated were reasonable and meant to maintain order, I hereby rule in favor of the Defense.

The District Court thanks all involved in this long and chaotic case.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top